On Lieberman’s consistency

November 7, 2006 - 3:28 PM by Sarah

On new Minister Avigdor Lieberman, leader of the ultra-right wing Yisrael Beiteinu party, Rafi G asks:

And then there was Avigdor Lieberman making some statements about the Arabs in Israel. He basically said that Israel needs to get rid of the Arabs and compared the situation to the split of Cyprus between the Greeks and the Turks. He said while it might be difficult durng the process, the end result has been peaceful and successful and would like to replicate that here in Israel. He basically is in favor of a swap of sorts delineating the Arabs/Palestinians and the Israelis.

That created a ruckus. Everybody in the government with him criticized him and his statements and denounced it. Some called for him to be removed from government. Some called for Olmert to tell him off and bring him in line with government policy.

I do not understand what the big huff is all about. Just last week he was not part of the government coalition because of his beliefs that he mentioned today. he was brought into the government with everybody knowing exactly what he believes and what policy he wishes to push. Now they are shocked by his statements? Labor party members who voted to sit with him in government are shocked by what he said? Where were they last week when they voted to participate with him in goverance? What does Olmert mean when he said, “Avigdor speaks for nobody but himself”? After all, he is part of the ruling government? Does he really only speak for himself? Does the fact that Olmert brought him in to government not mean Olmert approves and validates of his opinions, at least on a certain level?

Even mroe than that though is this. Why is what he said so bad and reprehensible to these people? Did Ariel Sharon not carry out almost exactly what Lieberman advocates? Sharon’s rallying cry was, “????? ??? ??? ??” “We will be here and they will be there”. His whole idea was to separate Arab and Israeli and therefore uprooted more than 8000 Jews from their homes (what Lieberman proposes is actually more humane than what Sharon did. The 8000 residents of Gush Katif were uprooted and left to rot, the Arabs under Liebermans plan would be treated well and there would be land swaps and transferrence of homes). Sharon did that and had the support of all the people criticizing Lieberman. Why is his plan racist when Sharon’s plan was honorable and worthy?

Was this government not formed on the exact same basis of more realignement and uprooting Jews from their homes? How can any member of this government or anybody else further left criticize Lieberman when they were planning to do the exact same thing?

Share with others